Comments on: Hmm http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/ Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:13:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Macjazz http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142894 Macjazz Fri, 09 May 2008 00:38:12 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142894 Watchu talkin' 'bout sheesh? It's in the nature of blog commenting to voice agreement or disagreement about posts made, especially when they don't seem to the commentator to hold water. That in itself is not disrespectful. And I don't see where most posts in this thread itself are disrespectful to Susie ... maybe to Lambert in a few places, but he's rather ... disputacious ^_^ ... himself these days, no? Susie's been a prolific and interesting post-er for years, as many here well know. Maybe at some point some of the rancor of this primary season will pass, and things will be a little less intense in the left blogosphere generally. Let's hope. Watchu talkin’ ’bout sheesh? It’s in the nature of blog commenting to voice agreement or disagreement about posts made, especially when they don’t seem to the commentator to hold water. That in itself is not disrespectful. And I don’t see where most posts in this thread itself are disrespectful to Susie … maybe to Lambert in a few places, but he’s rather … disputacious ^_^ … himself these days, no?

Susie’s been a prolific and interesting post-er for years, as many here well know. Maybe at some point some of the rancor of this primary season will pass, and things will be a little less intense in the left blogosphere generally. Let’s hope.

]]> By: sheesh http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142871 sheesh Thu, 08 May 2008 21:19:47 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142871 The posters on this blog are pretty consistently disrespectful to their host. I don't understand why, if you find Susie's posts so repulsive and stupid, you keep returning and echo chambering each other to death. It's really tedious, in addition to being inconsiderate. Susie isn't mendacious or stupid or evil. Cut some slack, Jacks. The posters on this blog are pretty consistently disrespectful to their host. I don’t understand why, if you find Susie’s posts so repulsive and stupid, you keep returning and echo chambering each other to death. It’s really tedious, in addition to being inconsiderate. Susie isn’t mendacious or stupid or evil. Cut some slack, Jacks.

]]> By: brendancalling http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142816 brendancalling Thu, 08 May 2008 12:23:25 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142816 Lambikins: <blockquote>Oh, so that’s the going rate? How did you know? Actually, as I’m sure you know, or have had explained to you by a manager, repetition is the key to successful propagation</blockquote> that wasn't exactly a denial, was it lambert? you and armstrong williams go have your fun now. Lambikins:

Oh, so that’s the going rate? How did you know?
Actually, as I’m sure you know, or have had explained to you by a manager, repetition is the key to successful propagation

that wasn’t exactly a denial, was it lambert? you and armstrong williams go have your fun now.

]]> By: Donald http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142811 Donald Thu, 08 May 2008 07:02:42 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142811 <b>Fermion</b> <i>"The rules were, the candidate with the most delegates (incl. supers) wins."</i> No, that's not what the rules say. The standing rule in Democratic conventions from time immemorial is that the candidate who garners at least 50% +1 of the delegates wins he nomination -- not the candidate who leads in the delegate count in early May. FYI, that particular "50% +1" threshold is 2,209 delegates if we count Michigan and Florida, or 2,024 if those two states are excluded (which IMHO is also political suicide for Democrats, but that's for another discussion). So until Sen. Obama finally surpasses that milepost, you can rest assured that he hasn't won a damn thing. Fermion “The rules were, the candidate with the most delegates (incl. supers) wins.”

No, that’s not what the rules say.

The standing rule in Democratic conventions from time immemorial is that the candidate who garners at least 50% +1 of the delegates wins he nomination — not the candidate who leads in the delegate count in early May. FYI, that particular “50% +1″ threshold is 2,209 delegates if we count Michigan and Florida, or 2,024 if those two states are excluded (which IMHO is also political suicide for Democrats, but that’s for another discussion).

So until Sen. Obama finally surpasses that milepost, you can rest assured that he hasn’t won a damn thing.

]]> By: Macjazz http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142804 Macjazz Thu, 08 May 2008 04:29:29 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142804 Touché, memyself. Touché. Clintons, moving the goalposts. Right there in black and white. Game. Set. Match. Touché, memyself. Touché. Clintons, moving the goalposts. Right there in black and white. Game. Set. Match.

]]> By: memyself http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142796 memyself Thu, 08 May 2008 03:21:50 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142796 Goalpost moving? Yeah, there's been plenty of that: * Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, January 9, 2008 WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates ...and we believe that we will do very well in the states between now and February 5th and on February 5th. But this is a delegate race. * MSNBC Appearance By Communications Director Howard Wolfson, January 25, 2008. WOLFSON: we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama. ...[WOLFSON] We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately. * Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, February 6, 2008 Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates. * Clinton News Teleconference, January 9, 2008 MCAULIFFE: I've said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest. But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates. Goalpost moving? Yeah, there’s been plenty of that:

* Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, January 9, 2008

WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I’d add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates …and we believe that we will do very well in the states between now and February 5th and on February 5th. But this is a delegate race.

* MSNBC Appearance By Communications Director Howard Wolfson, January 25, 2008.

WOLFSON: we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It’s a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama.

…[WOLFSON] We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately.

* Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, February 6, 2008

Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates.

* Clinton News Teleconference, January 9, 2008

MCAULIFFE: I’ve said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I’ve always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.

But, listen, I always said we’re going to win some, we’re going to lose some. And at the end of the day it’s getting a basket of delegates.

]]> By: zorro http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142795 zorro Thu, 08 May 2008 03:13:37 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142795 Lambert, Here's what I don't get-- Last night Hillary fell behind by another 200,000 in the popular vote. She isn't to catch Obama in that metric or any other. So why are you still hanging your hopes on the popular vote theme? And given that Hillary and her supporters have made such a big deal out of the popular vote, you're in no position to expect that the SD's should ignore the pledged delegate count AND the popular vote and give HRC the nomination anyway. She is going to lose on both counts. Lambert,

Here’s what I don’t get– Last night Hillary fell behind by another 200,000 in the popular vote. She isn’t to catch Obama in that metric or any other. So why are you still hanging your hopes on the popular vote theme?

And given that Hillary and her supporters have made such a big deal out of the popular vote, you’re in no position to expect that the SD’s should ignore the pledged delegate count AND the popular vote and give HRC the nomination anyway. She is going to lose on both counts.

]]> By: whippingpost http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142793 whippingpost Thu, 08 May 2008 02:23:16 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142793 Hey I said it twice. Thought I was banned because your crappy blog keeps giving an error when I post. Fix it! Hey I said it twice. Thought I was banned because your crappy blog keeps giving an error when I post. Fix it!

]]> By: whippingpost http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142791 whippingpost Thu, 08 May 2008 02:17:11 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142791 Fermion, Don't bother with logic and reason, like The Corner and NRO those concepts don't work here. But lambert must be proud now that he sits beside Jonah Goldberg as one of the biggest idiots on the internet. <a href="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9391.html" rel="nofollow">Well done lambert!</a> Fermion,
Don’t bother with logic and reason, like The Corner and NRO those concepts don’t work here.
But lambert must be proud now that he sits beside Jonah Goldberg as one of the biggest idiots on the internet.
Well done lambert!

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142789 Bob Thu, 08 May 2008 02:06:37 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142789 Lambert, I’ll say this for you, you never disappoint: “And anybody who thinks that the SDs have a duty to do anything other than exercise their judgment in this matter is either plan ignorant or flat-out lying.” Thanks for clearing that up. See, the point is, David Plouffe was accused of “moving the goalposts” for pointing out that the goal from day 1 – according to the party’s own rules – is to get the right number of delegates, not the most votes* – there is no goalpost moving in that. But go ahead and hang on to your last desperate hope that the SuperD’s will come through for you and deliver the country from the candidate of the rabble and hand it to the candidate who so far has redefined “winning” about a dozen times – which, low information voter that I am and all - seems to be the very definition of “moving the goalposts”. Really, honestly, your candidate ain’t gonna make it. So now if it’s not asking too much, stop pretending to be a Democrat and go do whatever you can to help McCain win (that’ll show us!!!) on wingnut sites. * And once again, with feeling, go ahead and count FL and MI – if you’re gonna be honest far more people have voted in primaries and cauceses for Obama than Clinton, so even by that metric Obama is ahead. But if we only count votes when they favor Clinton…. Lambert, I’ll say this for you, you never disappoint: “And anybody who thinks that the SDs have a duty to do anything other than exercise their judgment in this matter is either plan ignorant or flat-out lying.”
Thanks for clearing that up. See, the point is, David Plouffe was accused of “moving the goalposts” for pointing out that the goal from day 1 – according to the party’s own rules – is to get the right number of delegates, not the most votes* – there is no goalpost moving in that. But go ahead and hang on to your last desperate hope that the SuperD’s will come through for you and deliver the country from the candidate of the rabble and hand it to the candidate who so far has redefined “winning” about a dozen times – which, low information voter that I am and all - seems to be the very definition of “moving the goalposts”.
Really, honestly, your candidate ain’t gonna make it. So now if it’s not asking too much, stop pretending to be a Democrat and go do whatever you can to help McCain win (that’ll show us!!!) on wingnut sites.
* And once again, with feeling, go ahead and count FL and MI – if you’re gonna be honest far more people have voted in primaries and cauceses for Obama than Clinton, so even by that metric Obama is ahead. But if we only count votes when they favor Clinton….

]]> By: lambert strether http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142788 lambert strether Thu, 08 May 2008 01:46:54 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142788 Fermion: I agree with you in more ways than you'll ever know. I love the linear riff, and your impersonation of a low information voter is superb. The part that you're missing -- or seem to be missing -- is that "the rules" allow -- indeed, even encourage -- the SDs to exercise their independent judgment. Judgment is, unfortunately for you, <i>not linear</i>. One factor that might enter into the SDs judgment is the popular vote. It might seem unfair to them that that a candidate with fewer popular votes won the nomination; it would be too much like Bush v Gore in 2000, back when you were in Junior High. Alternatively, they might prefer a younger demographic and a narrower base, because they felt the future of the party was there. Alternatively, they might decide that although candidate A won the the popular vote, candidate B won the states that had to be won to win the electoral vote in the general. See? It's non-linear. And anybody who thinks that the SDs have a duty to do anything other than exercise their judgment in this matter is either plan ignorant or flat-out lying. Proforma closing question: Does this help, if that's possible? Fermion:

I agree with you in more ways than you’ll ever know.

I love the linear riff, and your impersonation of a low information voter is superb. The part that you’re missing — or seem to be missing — is that “the rules” allow — indeed, even encourage — the SDs to exercise their independent judgment. Judgment is, unfortunately for you, not linear. One factor that might enter into the SDs judgment is the popular vote. It might seem unfair to them that that a candidate with fewer popular votes won the nomination; it would be too much like Bush v Gore in 2000, back when you were in Junior High. Alternatively, they might prefer a younger demographic and a narrower base, because they felt the future of the party was there. Alternatively, they might decide that although candidate A won the the popular vote, candidate B won the states that had to be won to win the electoral vote in the general. See? It’s non-linear. And anybody who thinks that the SDs have a duty to do anything other than exercise their judgment in this matter is either plan ignorant or flat-out lying.

Proforma closing question: Does this help, if that’s possible?

]]> By: lambert strether http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142786 lambert strether Thu, 08 May 2008 01:38:48 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142786 You're right, Susie. I have the jargon of the corporate shills mixed up. Regardless of the jargon, Axelrod was the one I was thinking of. I mean, does he really pay $10 for a comment, or even a post? Because I need to sign up with him. Maybe some of the Obama commenters on this site could put me in touch? You’re right, Susie. I have the jargon of the corporate shills mixed up.

Regardless of the jargon, Axelrod was the one I was thinking of. I mean, does he really pay $10 for a comment, or even a post? Because I need to sign up with him. Maybe some of the Obama commenters on this site could put me in touch?

]]> By: Fermion The Clown http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142783 Fermion The Clown Thu, 08 May 2008 01:18:29 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142783 uh, sorry, but I'm a very linear sorta clown. Correct me if I'm wrong. The rules were, the candidate with the most delegates (incl. supers) wins. Both campaigns, if they were smart, focused on the delegates. Candidate O does a better job of acquiring hits (delegates) than Candidate HRC. Candidate HRC then says, "Wait-a-minnit! In a democracy, popular vote is the only acceptable metric! Wheee! I win!" Candidate O then Opines, thru Campaign Manager P, "Wait-a-minnit! We all agreed that *hits* were what counted! What's this Vox Populi, Baby?" To recap: I'm very linear. Tell me again who is "moving the goalposts"? uh, and because I'm such a naively linear clown, explain it in simple terms that I can understand, please. I'm not very bright. uh, sorry, but I’m a very linear sorta clown.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

The rules were, the candidate with the most delegates (incl. supers) wins.

Both campaigns, if they were smart, focused on the delegates.

Candidate O does a better job of acquiring hits (delegates) than Candidate HRC.

Candidate HRC then says, “Wait-a-minnit! In a democracy, popular vote is the only acceptable metric! Wheee! I win!”

Candidate O then Opines, thru Campaign Manager P, “Wait-a-minnit! We all agreed that *hits* were what counted! What’s this Vox Populi, Baby?”

To recap: I’m very linear. Tell me again who is “moving the goalposts”?

uh, and because I’m such a naively linear clown, explain it in simple terms that I can understand, please. I’m not very bright.

]]> By: Susie http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142777 Susie Wed, 07 May 2008 23:52:05 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142777 No, Lambert, you're confused. Axlerod is the guy who does "astroturfing" for corporations! http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm No, Lambert, you’re confused. Axlerod is the guy who does “astroturfing” for corporations!

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm

]]> By: steveeboy http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142776 steveeboy Wed, 07 May 2008 23:45:23 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142776 actually, the "micro-trend" guy is hrc's fired campaign guy, mark penn. nice try though trolly... actually, the “micro-trend” guy is hrc’s fired campaign guy, mark penn.

nice try though trolly…

]]> By: k http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142775 k Wed, 07 May 2008 23:42:52 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142775 Okay, kids. Remember that whole thing about that guy winning the popular vote, but not the electoral college, and how it kinda sucked? To me, it sounds like Obama's campaign is saying that no, they didn't win the popular vote, but who cares? (And isn't Clinton ahead in the states with the most electoral college votes, anyway?) Okay, kids. Remember that whole thing about that guy winning the popular vote, but not the electoral college, and how it kinda sucked?
To me, it sounds like Obama’s campaign is saying that no, they didn’t win the popular vote, but who cares?
(And isn’t Clinton ahead in the states with the most electoral college votes, anyway?)

]]> By: zorro http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142774 zorro Wed, 07 May 2008 23:39:38 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142774 Hillary's problem is that after last night's thumping in NC, she can't win either the pledged delegate count or the popular vote. So, the only hope she has is that the superdelegates ignore both of those metrics and give her the nomination anyway. The irony here is that such an outcome would fly directly in the face of HRC's argument that the popular vote is the critical metric. She is toast, and she lacks the grace or class to get out of the race. Check out this video from today if you want to see a sore loser in action-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlfYgbOLVs Hillary’s problem is that after last night’s thumping in NC, she can’t win either the pledged delegate count or the popular vote. So, the only hope she has is that the superdelegates ignore both of those metrics and give her the nomination anyway. The irony here is that such an outcome would fly directly in the face of HRC’s argument that the popular vote is the critical metric. She is toast, and she lacks the grace or class to get out of the race. Check out this video from today if you want to see a sore loser in action–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlfYgbOLVs

]]> By: par4 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142773 par4 Wed, 07 May 2008 23:28:13 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142773 Gore/Edwards 08 Gore/Edwards 08

]]> By: lambert strether http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142764 lambert strether Wed, 07 May 2008 21:39:57 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142764 brendancalling burbles: <blockquote> when you’re getting paid $10.00 to post”why won’t the bitch drop out” over and over again, you kinda lose your credibility. Oh, so that's the going rate? How did you know? Actually, as I'm sure you know, or have had explained to you by a manager, repetition is the key to successful propagation -- and WWTSBQ propagated quite successfully. I note with great pleasure that seems to have garnered a tiny little bit of mindshare with you. Haw.</blockquote> brendancalling burbles:

when you’re getting paid $10.00 to post”why won’t the bitch drop out” over and over again, you kinda lose your credibility.

Oh, so that’s the going rate? How did you know?
Actually, as I’m sure you know, or have had explained to you by a manager, repetition is the key to successful propagation — and WWTSBQ propagated quite successfully. I note with great pleasure that seems to have garnered a tiny little bit of mindshare with you. Haw.

]]> By: Joe http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142761 Joe Wed, 07 May 2008 21:20:33 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142761 hrc - in defending her fight to the finish - states it is a 50 state election...I guess now all states matter...sorta...kinda... hrc - in defending her fight to the finish - states it is a 50 state election…I guess now all states matter…sorta…kinda…

]]> By: snuzy mandrake http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142760 snuzy mandrake Wed, 07 May 2008 21:14:33 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142760 why are you pasting all of that into the comments, t-bone? susie already <a href="http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/09/29/a-fair-plan/" rel="nofollow">linked to that very same piece</a> earlier today. why are you pasting all of that into the comments, t-bone?

susie already linked to that very same piece earlier today.

]]> By: T-Bone http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142757 T-Bone Wed, 07 May 2008 20:55:17 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142757 To continue that article: "A Fair Plan" by John Baer, Phila. Daily News To continue that article: “A Fair Plan” by John Baer, Phila. Daily News

]]> By: snuzy mandrake http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142754 snuzy mandrake Wed, 07 May 2008 20:47:24 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142754 <i>And merely being ahead in pledged delegates does not equal winning the most delegates. There’s a magic number, and neither one, neither Clinton *nor* Obama, will reach it prior to the convention. This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.</i> all of that is true. and yet, none of that contradicts what plouffe wrote in his memo to the supers, nor does it show how by writing that memo he has "moved the goalposts". i'm really curious to find out where susie thought the obama campaign put the goalpost before and how it is any different in plouffe's statement. And merely being ahead in pledged delegates does not equal winning the most delegates. There’s a magic number, and neither one, neither Clinton *nor* Obama, will reach it prior to the convention.

This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.

all of that is true. and yet, none of that contradicts what plouffe wrote in his memo to the supers, nor does it show how by writing that memo he has “moved the goalposts”.

i’m really curious to find out where susie thought the obama campaign put the goalpost before and how it is any different in plouffe’s statement.

]]> By: brendancalling http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142753 brendancalling Wed, 07 May 2008 20:44:39 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142753 hey lambert? when you're getting paid $10.00 to post"why won't the bitch drop out" over and over again, you kinda lose your credibility. Kthxbye. hey lambert?

when you’re getting paid $10.00 to post”why won’t the bitch drop out” over and over again, you kinda lose your credibility.
Kthxbye.

]]> By: wobbly http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142752 wobbly Wed, 07 May 2008 20:36:33 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142752 "Spinning" is, by any definition, inherently shameless. No matter who does it or how it's done. We should all pay far less attention to these hirelings than we do. “Spinning” is, by any definition, inherently shameless.
No matter who does it or how it’s done.
We should all pay far less attention to these hirelings than we do.

]]> By: lambert strether http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142748 lambert strether Wed, 07 May 2008 20:23:42 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142748 Axelrod does micromarketing, right? In his day job? Just asking. Axelrod does micromarketing, right? In his day job? Just asking.

]]> By: BlindJoeDeath http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142745 BlindJoeDeath Wed, 07 May 2008 20:11:46 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142745 <i>This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.</i> Correct and Obama received 4 super delegate endorsements today including Jennifer McClellan who switched form Clinton to Obama. Clinton received one, but nets zero due to McClellan's move. McGovern asked her to step down, so I assume he'll be changing his vote to Obama. Hillary needs 2 super delegates for every super that announces for Obama, that is not going to happen. This is over, I understand your disappointment, but trying to dream up scenarios where Clinton will win is a waste of time. This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.
Correct and Obama received 4 super delegate endorsements today including Jennifer McClellan who switched form Clinton to Obama. Clinton received one, but nets zero due to McClellan’s move.
McGovern asked her to step down, so I assume he’ll be changing his vote to Obama.
Hillary needs 2 super delegates for every super that announces for Obama, that is not going to happen.
This is over, I understand your disappointment, but trying to dream up scenarios where Clinton will win is a waste of time.

]]> By: zuzu http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142743 zuzu Wed, 07 May 2008 19:58:25 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142743 <i>The nominee gains the nomination by winning the most delegates. Period.</i> And merely being ahead in pledged delegates does not equal winning the most delegates. There's a magic number, and neither one, neither Clinton *nor* Obama, will reach it prior to the convention. This thing's being decided by superdelegates, and they don't have to follow any rules at all in making their decision. The nominee gains the nomination by winning the most delegates. Period.

And merely being ahead in pledged delegates does not equal winning the most delegates. There’s a magic number, and neither one, neither Clinton *nor* Obama, will reach it prior to the convention.

This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.

]]> By: BlindJoeDeath http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142742 BlindJoeDeath Wed, 07 May 2008 19:57:51 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142742 Oh, the answer to this question <i>Whose shameless spinning is this?</i> is Susie. Oh, the answer to this question Whose shameless spinning is this? is Susie.

]]> By: BlindJoeDeath http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/07/14/34/hmm-64/#comment-142741 BlindJoeDeath Wed, 07 May 2008 19:56:17 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24762#comment-142741 Susie, Here's a challenge, show me where the rules of the party state that the winner is based on popular vote. The nominee gains the nomination by winning the most delegates. Period. If the the nominee was decided based on popular vote the candidates would place all their resources in big states and try to run up totals as high as possible. It's not, it's based on winning delegates that are assigned proportionately by district. The smart candidates plan their campaign accordingly. You may not like this but those are the rules. My daughter gets upset when we play board games and the rules cause her to lose. She's only 8 years old so I understand this behavior coming from her but your an adult you don't have that excuse. That said, Obama will win the popular vote count, so it's time to let that irrelevant argument fall into the dustbin of taylor marsh's wild imagination. Susie,
Here’s a challenge, show me where the rules of the party state that the winner is based on popular vote. The nominee gains the nomination by winning the most delegates. Period.
If the the nominee was decided based on popular vote the candidates would place all their resources in big states and try to run up totals as high as possible. It’s not, it’s based on winning delegates that are assigned proportionately by district. The smart candidates plan their campaign accordingly.
You may not like this but those are the rules. My daughter gets upset when we play board games and the rules cause her to lose. She’s only 8 years old so I understand this behavior coming from her but your an adult you don’t have that excuse.
That said, Obama will win the popular vote count, so it’s time to let that irrelevant argument fall into the dustbin of taylor marsh’s wild imagination.

]]>